I think it only fitting to repeat Joshua Feldman's posts on the evidence.

1) The Earth is warming - as corroborated by a host of evidence.2) This warming is caused by greenhouse gases, as supported by a wide constellation of evidence.3) The greenhouse gas that has changed is CO2 and human fossil fuel emissions are driving the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase according to carbon isotope evidence.

I'll introduce each of these points with a separate post, starting with 1 below:

1) We have a conclusive array of evidence that the Earth is warming. This evidence comes from a range of direct measurements, but is also corroborated by a host of other phenomena. On the measurement side, we have ocean surface, ocean depth (XBT & buoy) data sets, surface land measurements, and satellite data sets (such as the MSU data sets from RSS & UAH). All these data sets are in agreement. On the physical phenomena side we have hundreds of studies documenting the global retreat of the cryosphere (ice caps, glaciers, sea ice, and ice shelves). These studies feature a number of high profile satellite studies showing overall ice mass loss in southern and peripheral Greenland, the Antarctic Peninsula and Western Antarctica. There is excellent satellite data showing a precipitous loss in Arctic sea ice extent. Finally there are thousands of studies from the field of biology documenting seasonal ecosystem changes modifying such things as animal and fish migration patterns and timing, timing of spring blooms, autumn seed bearing, and other biospheric phenomena that corroborate climate. All of these streams of data corroborate each other and tell a consistent story - the Earth is warming.

Retreat of glaciers:http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balancehttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/

Corroborating evidence of changes to the natural world (the field of "phenology") - see 3rd post down from here.

Discussion locked |
Report abuse14 of 29 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

If greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm we would expect a number of diagnostic phenomena to be observable because greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat and then re-radiate it all directions. These "fingerprints" would be:

1) an energy imbalance in the Earth's radiant budget. Less heat would be escaping back into space than the Earth receives. The difference between the radiation coming in and going out would be driving the warming. This is a unique signature of greenhouse gas warming.

2) because atmospheric gases would be the locus of the warming we would expect the lower atmospheric stratum - the troposphere to warm. Conversely, because more of the outgoing radiant heat from the Earth would be trapped by the troposphere and re-emitted in all directions we would expect that the stratosphere above it would be deprived of radiant heating from the Earth's surface and would cool. If the Sun, and not greenhouse gases, were a principle source of the warming we would expect the stratosphere to warm too.

3) Because the troposphere is warming (and expanding) while the stratosphere cools (and contracts) we would expect the dividing line between the two - the tropopause to rise in altitude.

4) We would expect the oceans to warm, as well as the atmosphere. This would not be so if the shifts in ocean thermal sinks was the cause of the warming.

5) We would expect spectral measurements of the sun from Earth to show an increasing amount of blockage of greenhouse gas wavelengths over time as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. We would expect to see an increase in emissions at precisely these wavelengths when looking down at the troposphere from space because Kirchoff's law dictates that thermal radiation absorbed must be equally emitted.

6) We would expect more of the warming - as a percentage to occur at night rather than during the day because of thermal emissions from greenhouse gases that absorbed thermal radiation during the day. We would concomitantly expect the reduced temperatures spreads between night and day. We would also expect reduced spreads between summer and winter temperatures, broadly averaged. These are all the inverse of what would be expected if the sun was the source of the warming.

Do we see any of these expected effects of greenhouse gas warming? Yes - we see ALL of them:

Abstract: "The spatial distribution of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends for 1979 to 2005 was examined, based on radiances from satellite-borne microwave sounding units that were processed with state-of-the-art retrieval algorithms. We found that relative to the global-mean trends of the respective layers, both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record."http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5777/1179

A large (~1023 J) multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in the upper 300 m of the world's oceans was reported roughly a decade ago1 and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases2, 3. The majority of the Earth's total energy uptake during recent decades has occurred in the upper ocean3, but the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are unclear, limiting our ability to assess closure of sea-level budgets4, 5, 6, 7, the global radiation imbalance8 and climate models5. For example, several teams have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies (hereafter OHCA curves) or, equivalently, the thermosteric sea-level rise5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Patterns of interannual variability, in particular, differ among methods. Here we examine several sources of uncertainty that contribute to differences among OHCA curves from 1993 to 2008, focusing on the difficulties of correcting biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. XBT data constitute the majority of the in situ measurements of upper-ocean heat content from 1967 to 2002, and we find that the uncertainty due to choice of XBT bias correction dominates among-method variability in OHCA curves during our 1993-2008 study period. Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993-2008 of 0.64 W m-2 (calculated for the Earth's entire surface area), with a 90-per-cent confidence interval of 0.53-0.75 W m-2.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09043.html

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. BantgesNature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553;"Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

"Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate."http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG005543000001000164000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

6) For temperature spreads, the IPCC lists a number of papers referenced here:From the IPCC 4th Assessment: "3.8.2.1 Temperature

For temperature extremes in the 20th century, the TAR highlighted the lengthening of the growing or frost-free season in most mid- and high-latitude regions, a reduction in the frequency of extreme low monthly and seasonal average temperatures and smaller increases in the frequency of extreme high average temperatures. In addition, there was evidence to suggest a decrease in the intra-annual temperature variability with consistent reductions in frost days and increases in warm nighttime temperatures across much of the globe. ..."[the article goes on to cite all the sources for this conclusion]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-2.html

Discussion locked |
Report abuse14 of 24 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

3. This accumulation of CO2 is due to human activity. The carbon cycle of the Earth has a stable mix of carbon isotopes C12 (the stable base isotope), C13 (a stable isotope that is preferentially not incorporated by plants), and C14 (the radioactive version created by the action of cosmic rays high in the atmosphere). Fossil fuel emissions are C12 enriched compared to the natural balance of carbon isotopes because it has been sequestered in rock for hundreds of millions of years. Thus, if fossil fuel emissions were behind the rise in atmospheric CO2 we would expect the proportion of C12 to rise. This is exactly what is happening. Because ocean sinks outgas CO2 when the oceans warm, C13 is a useful marker in differentiating CO2 from ocean and fossil fuel sources because fossil fuel sources will be C13 poor - just like plant sources.

This evidence begins with Suess and Revell 1957 - for which I'll refer you to AIP (Spencer Weart)'s excellent history of the theory of CO2's role in greenhouse gas warming:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmspecifically reference 30:"30. Suess (1955); see also Suess (1953); a confirmation: M¨¹nnich (1957); Revision: Houtermans et al. (1967), see p. 68. "

But research on this topic has continued through the decades, adding precision and certainty to the results. Here are more contemporary citations:

"The 13C value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the 13C of atmospheric CO2 and the 13C value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years."http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;256/5053/74

he anthropogenic ¦Ä13C change for the time period 1968 to 1991 was determined based on calculations of the preformed 13C/12C of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) distributions on isopycnal surfaces in the main thermocline of the Pacific, North Atlantic and South Indian Oceans. The time rate of change of preformed ¦Ä13C (the 13C Suess effect) along isopycnals was calculated using CFC-derived water ages and yields a time history of the surface water ¦Ä13C change at the isopycnal outcrop location. The surface ocean Suess effect recorded on isopycnals decreased with increasing outcrop latitude from approximately −0.2¡ë decade−1 within the subtropics to around −0.1¡ë decade−1 in the subpolar oceans. In the Pacific Ocean these surface ¦Ä13C change rate reconstructions agree, both in magnitude and meridional trend, with direct observations of surface ocean ¦Ä13C changes reported from time series measurements and from comparisons of surface water ¦Ä13C of DIC measurements in 1970 and 1993. A global ocean average surface ¦Ä13C rate of change of −0.15 ¡À 0.04 ¡ë decade−1 is determined, which is slightly smaller than a previous time series data and model-based estimate (−0.171¡ë decade−1 , [Bacastow etal., 1996]). Depth integrations of the 13C reconstructions in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, when combined with these previous individual depth profile comparisons and Geochemical Ocean Sections Study bomb 14C inventories [Quay et al, 1992], imply a global depth-integrated ¦Ä13C change rate of −9.7 ¡À 2.4¡ë m yr−1 over the time period 1970-1990. These results imply a net oceanic CO2 uptake rate of 1.9 ¡À 0.9 Gt C yr−1 over the time period 1970-1990 when applied to an atmospheric 13CO2 and 12CO2 budget.http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1999/1999GB900027.shtml

There are many articles. The recent thrust of this research has been on the topic of ocean acidification. The point is that the Suess effect is well known and corroborated. Anthropogenic carbon emissions are known to have altered global carbon isotope ratios.

Discussion locked |
Report abuse12 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

The evidence of phenology corroborates that the Earth is warming:P.A. CottonAvian migration phenology and global climate changeProceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 100, Issue 21, p.12219-12222Abstract: "There is mounting evidence that global climate change has extended growing seasons, changed distribution patterns, and altered the phenology of flowering, breeding, and migration. For migratory birds, the timing of arrival on breeding territories and over-wintering grounds is a key determinant of reproductive success, survivorship, and fitness. But we know little of the factors controlling earlier passage in long-distance migrants. Over the past 30 years in Oxfordshire, U.K., the average arrival and departure dates of 20 migrant bird species have both advanced by 8 days; consequently, the overall residence time in Oxfordshire has remained unchanged. The timing of arrival has advanced in relation to increasing winter temperatures in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas the timing of departure has advanced after elevated summer temperatures in Oxfordshire. This finding demonstrates that migratory phenology is quite likely to be affected by global climate change and links events in tropical winter quarters with those in temperate breeding areas. "http://www.pnas.org/content/100/21/12219.full.pdf

Cynthia Rosenzweig1, David Karoly2, Marta Vicarelli1, Peter Neofotis1, Qigang Wu3, Gino Casassa4, Annette Menzel5, Terry L. Root6, Nicole Estrella5, Bernard Seguin7, Piotr Tryjanowski8, Chunzhen Liu9, Samuel Rawlins10 & Anton ImesonAttributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate changeNature 453, 353-357 (15 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06937.Abstract:"Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html

Isabelle Chuine, Xavier Morin, and Harald Bugmann (16 July 2010)Science 329 (5989), 277-e. [DOI: 10.1126/science.329.5989.277-e]"Phenological events such as bud burst, flowering, and senescence have received increased interest in the light of global warming (1-3). Spring events at temperate latitudes have advanced by 2.5 days per decade since 1971 (4). As global warming progresses, how will it affect the arrival of spring and the length of the growing season? "http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5972/1461

Discussion locked |
Report abuse10 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

A frequent topic in AGW debates is the climate proxy data describing past climate shifts. Mann's "hockey stick" paper is a frequent target. The gist of the debate is that because past climate can only be inferred there is no reason to believe that current the current warming is "unprecedented". The current warming is not particularly hot in overall historical terms. The Holocene Climate Optimum was probably hotter, at least in the far northern hemisphere from 8k-5k years ago. However the notion that the other various "warm periods" (Medieval, Roman, Minoan, etc...) were warmer than today is not supported by most climate proxies. Here are a smattering of recent papers and new articles about papers which present empirical evidence that the current warming is quite significant - probably the warmest since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended:

On the topic of how "unprecedented" the current warming is, there have been a number of papers which touch on this based on empirical evidence from the cryosphere. I'll just toss them out here below. The upshot is that the current retreat of the cryosphere is apparently the greatest in thousands of years (since the Holocene Climactic Optimum - which was driven by a wobble in the Earth's precession (Milankovitch cycle) which is not a warming forcing now - it has actually been a weak cooling forcing over the past few thousand years). It is empirical evidence that the greenhouse gas warming we are seeing really is significant in the context of the Earth's long term climactic history. The sea ice studies speak for themselves. The ice patch archeology is strong circumstantial evidence because artifacts made of wood and leather are coming to the surface that were frozen in 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Because wood and leather are highly perishable, they would have rotted away if the ice retreated comparably periodically over the past 5-10,000 years. Because these artifacts are intact, and are melting out now, the clear implication is that the current melt is the deepest since the deposition of these artifacts 5000 and 10,000 years ago.

Sea ice retreat:

Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic Historyhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602193423.htm

"The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in theearly 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears tobe unmatched over at least the last few thousand years," said LeonidPolyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at OhioState University.

Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13-14 million years. Ice was apparently most widespread during the last 2-3 million years, in accordance with Earth's overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010

Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variationhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm

Trends - file this under "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Because 1998 was an extremely warm year because of a very strong El Nino skeptics frequently graph from 1998 in order to show that the Earth has "stopped warming" or "is cooling". However, if you graph from 1999 or 1997 or 2000 you see robust warming. The variations of weather produce too noisy a signal to get a reliable trend on the decade time scale. The upshot here is ***any graph you see that starts in 1998 to argue cooling or a lack or correlation with CO2 is based upon a statistical lie***

Vaughan Pratt has produced the following tour of recent climate trends to allow you to interact with the data and see for yourself:

http://tinyurl.com/agwtrendhttp://tinyurl.com/agwrise

VP: <<For each of agwtrend and agwrise you will get a plot of Earth's global temperature for the past thirty years (the light blue wiggles) and a trend line for it (the long straight violet line) sloping up at 0.16 °C per decade or 1.6 °C per century.

You will also see three shorter trend lines, red, green, and blue, one for each decade, the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Unlike the 30-year line however these are very different between agwtrend and agwrise.

agwtrend shows the 80s and 00s sloping up at a gentle 0.4 or so °C per century, while the 90s slopes up at an alarming 3 °C per century.

agwrise modifies the definition of "decade" slightly by starting each decade a year earlier and stopping it in the year before the next decade starts, so 79-88, 89-98, 99-08. This small adjustment makes a huge difference to the slopes. The 80s is now almost flat, while both the 90s and the 00s are practically parallel to the 30-year trend, with the 00s slightly steeper than the 90s (remember the 90s was rising at 3 °C per century in agwtrend).

The really neat thing about these graphs is that you can play round with them yourself. Here's a little experiment you can do. In agwrise, just add two years to the two dates in the menu for Series 3 (the blue curve for the 00s), changing them from 1999-2008 to 2001-2010, and then click Plot Graph. You'll see the blue line go from being parallel to the green 90s line to sloping down. That graph should warm the cockles of every climate denier's heart.

The point is that global temperature fluctuates on a time scale that makes 10-year trend lines meaningless. By picking the start and end of "the last decade" carefully you can make the global temperature appear to be rising or falling.

Twenty years is somewhat more trustworthy, but look at CRU director Phil Jones' response to BBC4 interviewer Roger Harrabin athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stmwhere Jones complained "The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length." (And while you're at it, use Wood for Trees to plot the trend lines for 1860-1880 and 1975-1998: you'll see that instead of Harrabin's figures of 0.163 and 0.166 they are actually 0.104 and 0.198. It's interesting to speculate how Harrabin was able to make them almost equal.)

A more reliable indicator of temperature trends is had with 30-year windows. Anyone debating global warming on the basis of 10-year windows or less is selling something.

ONE DECADE IS NOT ENOUGH.>>

Discussion locked |
Report abuse10 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

EB also trots out this tripe;'Thankfully the real news and facts regarding the climate are coming out..including a recent letter by 125+ scientists to the UN questioning the entire AGW thesis ... Michael Mann is running scared because his life's work seems to be going up in smoke... http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/climate-sensationalism/2008603859001'

HelVee: This 'open letter' was authored by Marc Morano. Hmm.. doesn't take long to discover that Marc Morano has no experience in climate science. He's not even a scientist. Mr Morano "kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center.... In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his...."Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website Denial Depot Climate Depot. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

"Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications.[1]"http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Discussion locked |
Report abuse11 of 17 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

TSNTPW: You realize I have caught Watts in so many lies, that it simply is not respectable.

EB: Hilarious..... but climate scare mongers never lie ??? Here is the truth... they actually lie to protect their jobs, to make a 'living' -- it is utterly shameful... ...http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-climate-science-in-shambles-real-scientists

Rather than cast aspersions, why not argue the science or the data.... fact is warming is simply NOT on par with rise in CO2... UN bureaucrats just seek power and want to limit growth and advancement in poorer nations... their liberal world-view is one that fails to see an expanding pie... the liberal group-think is entirely upside-down.... and AGW feeds into their efforts to bolster a command-and-control world-order... the public are on to them now... the jig is up...

Discussion locked |
Report abuse7 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

"The AGW consensus scam is one of the most astounding frauds in all of history, not only because it is patently false, but also because it is being used to propel the most sweeping and authoritarian scheme for global economic, social, and political regimentation the world has ever seen. This is not merely a theoretical scientific debate; the alleged "science" is being used to drive policy and legislation - at a global level. The policies they have already succeeded in imposing have caused devastating impacts, especially on the world's poorest populations. The additional policies they propose would cause even more horrendous results. The AGW alarmists insist that "science has spoken," and it is telling us, they say, that we must subject ourselves to UN-mandated global governance - which is to be determined, of course, by scientists who toe the UN-approved, IPCC-certified party line...." ~ http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-climate-science-in-shambles-real-scientists

Discussion locked |
Report abuse10 of 25 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

In reply to an earlier post on
Dec 6, 2012 7:36:53 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 6, 2012 7:37:08 AM PST

I agree that global warming is the proximate danger most dangerous to humanity and our fellow creatures on Earth. However, nowhere in the truly massive OP was there mention of the underlying cause of global warming: human overpopulation.

Face it, if the world's human population hadn't doubled since 1970--or if, better yet, it remained at 1 billion (as of 1804), none of our C02/methane-producing practices would be changing the world's climate. And given our current population level, it's doubtful that anything we do will prevent us going past the tipping point to a profound change in climate--one I guarantee you we won't like.

So probably the best thing we can do about global warming is to work on women's rights and access to contraception/abortion worldwide. Women with rights don't have 10 children.

Discussion locked |
Report abuse16 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

Ehkzu says:So probably the best thing we can do about global warming is to work on women's rights and access to contraception/abortion worldwide. Women with rights don't have 10 children. ***You just witnessed the Sandra Fluke crucifixion and you wonder why we can't add contraception and family planning to the AGW debate?

Discussion locked |
Report abuse10 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

<< In 2006, Lovelock, one of the world's most famous environmentalist gurus, asserted that due to global warming "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion."

TSNTPW: I answered this one before:

In 2006, Lovelock, one of the world's most famous environmentalist gurus, asserted that due to global warming "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion."

Discussion locked |
Report abuse5 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

<<Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is another recent green heretic. A founding father of Germany's environmental movement and a director of one of Europe's largest alternative energy companies, Vahrenholt stunned the "greens" in February of this year with publication of the climate-skeptic book Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), which scorches the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other alarmists>>

By the way, EB. Did you notice your website is a major kooky about looking for Planet X?

According to Wikipedia, mainstream astronomy doesn't think it exists anymore.

Here is the citation:

Planet X disproved

Harrington died in January 1993, without having found Planet X.[37] Six months before, E. Myles Standish had used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%-an amount comparable to the mass of Mars[37]-to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus.[38] When Neptune's newly determined mass was used in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris (JPL DE), the supposed discrepancies in the Uranian orbit, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished.[3] There are no discrepancies in the trajectories of any space probes such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 that can be attributed to the gravitational pull of a large undiscovered object in the outer Solar System.[39] Today, most astronomers agree that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune

No surprises, you provided a junk website, huh?And I proved in the details it references to global warming was junk too.

Discussion locked |
Report abuse7 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

In reply to an earlier post on
Dec 6, 2012 2:21:42 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 6, 2012 3:02:10 PM PST

HelVee: This 'open letter' was authored by Marc Morano. Hmm.. doesn't take long to discover that Marc Morano has no experience in climate science. He's not even a scientist. Mr Morano "kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center.... In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his...."Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website Denial Depot Climate Depot. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

"Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications.[1]"http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

TSNTPW: Show us who those 1000 scientists are. You know, Imhofe had to whittle it down, when it was obvious these "scientists" included COMPUTER scientists, doctors, economists...

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. ..

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

Horse: but global warming is not a real problem except to politicians like algore trying to get rich off it

TSNTPW: Sorry, that IS a lie.

ALL the world renown science agencies warn about global warming:

Here is the Royal Society:

http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/

<<It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure - global temperature - the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.

The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Our work has taken the following forms:Policy reports & statements

Joint statements with other science academies==================================================

Here is their counterpart science organization is the United States:American Association of Science (AAS)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

"Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record."

Sounds fairly serious to me.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full

Discussion locked |
Report abuse10 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
YesNo

Your reply to cdAuthorNamePlaceholder's post:

To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASINproduct-title]]
(What's this?)